Posted by dorayme on 10/14/06 00:23

In article <MPG.1f99af9a1fd7088b9896fb@news.aardvark.net.au>,
Joe (GKF) <joedinmore@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-D1D293.12172413102006@news-
> vip.optusnet.com.au>, doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au says...
>
> ...
> >
> > But I agree that the seen email address should be normal
> > looking. There is a way around this, to not put any at all, just
> > a link, the words being, "email us" or whatever.
> >
>
> The problem with that, as I see it, is that people who might want to
> email you but are not able to at that time (because they are in an
> Internet Cafe, Library, or someplace else they can't send email from)
> can't just write the addy on the back of an envelope and take it with
> them. Anyway, there's someething that inspires trust about an address
> you can actually see - and if the 'bots have trouble, so much the
> better.
>

Yes. You are right. And if the bots have trouble, so much the
better.

> > I would be interested to hear from anyone who has an idea of the
> > chances of email harvesting happening from the expressed text on
> > the page as distinct from the source.
>
> but ... nah, you probably feel like a dill already.

Not really (but that's the mark of a dill, you see).

Have this idea that the source is searched for addresses but that
the expressed text could be too ...

The simple fact is that I do not know how these bots work, do
they look in strings starting with "mailto:" or even simpler, any
"well-formed" ascii email string.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]